24 ms·

Marriage rates are historic lows. Birth rates are historic lows. Women having careers is certainly the current belief why these are so low. Though as the articl

Marriage rates are historic lows. Birth rates are historic lows. Women having careers is certainly the current belief why these are so low. Though as the article says they dont quite explain the situation. Car seats are ridiculous. Not a thing I considered before having a kid. It kind of makes sense, now that more kids could happen, the probability of filling the back seats with car seats is certainly expensive and annoying. Thus when that third kid comes along, the minivan must happen. A convincing argument being made by the article but I feel it's similar in that it's just 1 piece of the puzzle. The other factor no doubt occurring is how imbalanced the system has become. It has become increasingly risky to even have a relationship with a woman let alone going to the extent of having a kid. The nanny government has come in to 'help' in many ways far beyond just car seats.

frongpik 6y ago
Well educated kids is obviously an asset to our society, but it puzzles me how the same society not only doesn't reward men for raising kids, it makes kids their biggest liability. It's like planting a tree because our society cries wolf about deforestation, and then years later getting a 500k bill from USFS because they had to do some works related to that tree. Men really need a lot of altruism to start a family these days.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  As a father there are certainly upsides. The problem is the nanny government is all cases. There is a good intention but in turn adjust a social balance that is in place. Even something like alimony is a liability. So men simply don't get married anymore. The government seeing the failure of the system then that having a woman as your roommate is 'common law' and still counts. So you literally just cant have a woman roommate. Yes the original reasoning was that the woman might hinder her career by tending kids and shouldn't be punished. However it has evolved well past those goals. The government is practically incentivizing divorce or never having a relationship with women to beginwith.
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
>Marriage rates are historic lows. Birth rates are historic lows. Women having careers is certainly the current belief why these are so low. In the olden days women had careers also, just only those ones in the upper-class. While women may not have had jobs like we think of them today, they also weren't at home taking care of households and chores and caring for children (they had an army of servants to do that for them) and so they pursued many of the same things upper-class men did. Birth rates and marriage rates are low now because our society doesn't value marriage and birth as much as previous ones. We no longer attach a person's worth to their marital status (and that has had many benefits, don't get me wrong). There are ongoing efforts to not see the point of marriage or a family as having and raising children (for now, it's still the first thing that comes to people's minds though). When that value isn't there socially, people won't struggle to attain that value. Instead we value material things a lot more (no way for me to prove that but it feels so clear when you read a bit of history or books from back then vs. now), and the best way to attain material things quickly is to not pursue things of declining social value (like babies and marriage).

frongpik 6y ago

Well educated kids is obviously an asset to our society, but it puzzles me how the same society not only doesn't reward men for raising kids, it makes kids their biggest liability. It's like planting a tree because our society cries wolf about deforestation, and then years later getting a 500k bill from USFS because they had to do some works related to that tree. Men really need a lot of altruism to start a family these days.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago
As a father there are certainly upsides. The problem is the nanny government is all cases. There is a good intention but in turn adjust a social balance that is in place. Even something like alimony is a liability. So men simply don't get married anymore. The government seeing the failure of the system then that having a woman as your roommate is 'common law' and still counts. So you literally just cant have a woman roommate. Yes the original reasoning was that the woman might hinder her career by tending kids and shouldn't be punished. However it has evolved well past those goals. The government is practically incentivizing divorce or never having a relationship with women to beginwith.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

>Marriage rates are historic lows. Birth rates are historic lows. Women having careers is certainly the current belief why these are so low. In the olden days women had careers also, just only those ones in the upper-class. While women may not have had jobs like we think of them today, they also weren't at home taking care of households and chores and caring for children (they had an army of servants to do that for them) and so they pursued many of the same things upper-class men did. Birth rates and marriage rates are low now because our society doesn't value marriage and birth as much as previous ones. We no longer attach a person's worth to their marital status (and that has had many benefits, don't get me wrong). There are ongoing efforts to not see the point of marriage or a family as having and raising children (for now, it's still the first thing that comes to people's minds though). When that value isn't there socially, people won't struggle to attain that value. Instead we value material things a lot more (no way for me to prove that but it feels so clear when you read a bit of history or books from back then vs. now), and the best way to attain material things quickly is to not pursue things of declining social value (like babies and marriage).